The Globe. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 692, 7 September 1876, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1876.

The debate on Tuesday evening last in the House of Representatives did not in our opinion either redound to the credit of the Government or the House as a whole. It was marked by a personality and acrimony which we hope will not become frequent. The subject, as our readers are probably aware, was the much vexed one of the appointment of the AgentGeneral. No doubt Sir Julius has justly been censured for his desertion of the colony and his colleagues at a very critical period of our political history. Even his warmest friends and supporters cannot attempt to justify him in this step. But even granting all this, his services to New Zealand as a public man, and the position to which his energy and foresight has raised her as a colony entitled him at least to some consideration. The attitude of many of the members of the House during the debate reminds us strongly of the conduct of the Indian beaters in a tiger hunt. Careful to keep at a respectful distance from the royal beast when living, no sooner is he killed by the hunters than no indignity is too much for them to heap upon him. They valiantly defy him, and metaphorically, if not practically, spit upon him and abuse him. So with a certain section of honourable members. When Sir Julius Vogel was in power, who so obedient, so subservient, in every respect, as they ? But no sooner does he resign the reins than they vie with each other as to who shall villify him the most. To a great extent we blame the present Ministry for the unseemly exhibition. They have hesitated to do what was obviously their duty. If it was resolved to appoint Sir Julius to the vacant office they should have come down to the House and announced that they had done so. It would then have been competent for any member, whether forming part of the Opposition or otherwise, to have tabled a motion of want of confidence. This would have been the proper and parliamentary course. But, instead of this, what did they do ? They have allowed their quondam colleague and chief to be dragged through the mire by, as it were, throwing the appointment on the floor of the House to be scrambled for. We do not think that conduct such as this is likely to raise the new Ministry in the esteem of the public. Even further than t his, they not only did not bring down the appointment Ministerially, but they neglected to take the course usually followed by Ministers, and have a distinct motion moved by one of their supporters. They allowed the adverse motion to be met by the evasive previous question, and accepted it, which practically leaves the matter as it was. Mr. Pearce one of the Wellington members, it seems to us, hit the right nail on the head when he said that the appointment was a matter of executive detail. It was of course open to the House afterwards to say that Ministers, who are responsible to the country for this as well as every other appointment, had done wrong. That would have raised a distinct issue, but the way in which the late debate was brought on was not only profitless, but certainly afforded scope for the display of bitterness and personal dislike which should never have taken place in a representative assembly. If the new Government are going to conduct the business of the House on the principle of expediency such as appears to be thtir intention, the sooner we are rid of them the better. A Government which is unable or unwilling to take a firm and decided stand upon a question which they have declared is a Ministerial one is a mere farce. It is not responsible Government, but governing by hap-bazard, and cannot bo too strongly condemned. We regret exceedingly that the late colleagues of the Premier, to whom he has always been loyal, and whose rock of safety ho has been, should have thus put it in the power of a section of the House to indulge in anything bub seemly language towards him. Had they taken the more manly course we have indicated we should have been spared the sight of the legislators of the country descending to what cannot but be characterised as personal abuse.